politics

60% opposed to amendment of Japan's Constitution under Abe

29 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

So revision is not the problem, Abe is........

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

After all, how can you expect help from something whose existence you refuse to recognize?

Ignoring the fact that being opposed to constitutional change does not equate to refusing to recognized the JSDF, the whole point of a democracy is that people are free to criticize it, yet still receive the protection of the country. That's how healthy democracies work. Anytime you start shooting down someone's right to have an opposing opinion in a democracy, you are opposing democracy.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

So 60% of those polled should not expect the JSDF to help them the next time a natural disaster strikes.

Nowhere in the article is there any mention of what you wrote here. The JSDF WILL assist, and they do not need to be an "official" military either.

This kind of commentary just stirs the pot of misinformation and obfuscation regarding the issue of the constitution here.

20 ( +23 / -3 )

I think this number is higher since it was a mail in survey, which means more older people took time to take it. I think they are more opposed to a change than young people are. Many of them either have experienced or were the first generation after the war, so they know first hand what happens when you send young people off to war.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

OssanAmericaToday  06:53 am JST

So 60% of those polled should not expect the JSDF to help them the next time a natural disaster strikes. Which in Japan is probably a month or two from now. After all, how can you expect help from something whose existence you refuse to recognize?

Perhaps it's just a sign of the rising tide of fascism around the world that we have posters suggesting people who don't share their political opinions deserve to die in the next earthquake.

Personally, I've always thought the most noble thing about people who join militaries and police forces is the drive to serve their community. How sad that we have people actively trying to deny this opportunity for service and selflessness, and instead twist it into a demand that the community serve the military.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Lol, so much for arrows

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Hmmm, that’s strange. I remember exactly the same report 4 or 5 years ago. It was ignored then and I’m sure it will be ignored again.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

So 60% of those polled should not expect the JSDF to help them the next time a natural disaster strikes. Which in Japan is probably a month or two from now. After all, how can you expect help from something whose existence you refuse to recognize?

An organisation helping in a time of natural disaster does not need to be a constitutionally-recognised military force.

If that were the case, all the major charities and organisations out there helping people - UNICEF, the Red Cross, Medicins san Frontiers, etc., etc., - would have to be run by majors and generals

Many of those who advocated revision cited the "outdatedness" of some clauses.

And this has nothing to do with gearing up for military action. If you read the Constitution, there are lots of little linguistic fiddly bits that could do with tidying up: e.g. あつて→あって、行ひ→行い, etc. I don't see how that would pose any problem; it doesn't change the meaning of anything.

But that is a completely different kettle of fish to changing the meaning of the text and inserting an obligation to 'honour the flag and national anthem', removing the repudiation of war for all time, making it easier for future governments to change the constitution at will, etc; these are things that should not be messed about with.

19 ( +20 / -1 )

Ignoring the fact that being opposed to constitutional change does not equate to refusing to recognized the JSDF, the whole point of a democracy is that people are free to criticize it, yet still receive the protection of the country. That's how healthy democracies work. Anytime you start shooting down someone's right to have an opposing opinion in a democracy, you are opposing democracy.

Perhaps it's just a sign of the rising tide of fascism around the world that we have posters suggesting people who don't share their political opinions deserve to die in the next earthquake.

Personally, I've always thought the most noble thing about people who join militaries and police forces is the drive to serve their community. How sad that we have people actively trying to deny this opportunity for service and selflessness, and instead twist it into a demand that the community serve the military.

2 excellent posts. Thanks guys

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Wanting to remain pacifist, while being dependant on the United States for your defense.

If the United States made any changes in posture this view in Japan would change immediately. I think it’s a combination of growing up post WWII in a pacifist enviroment, and having the luxury of the USA defending you, that’s made most people anti military, anti US, anti China, and also wanting peace but not wanting a military to protect it.

Most see Japan as a victim of bombing in WWII not as a past aggressor, so the notion that “we are peaceful and want that to continue” is prevalent. However we all know that you cannot successfully want peace vs real enemies. Russia, China, and NK are real threats to Japan. SK is a total swing state, also balanced by the US.

Japan is probably in a unique time as the last 70 years America has been its conqueror and it’s army. Foe has become ally.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Zichi

I agree about other countries. Aren’t we talking about Japan?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It's as if Abe is deaf.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

StrangerlandToday 07:07 am JST

After all, how can you expect help from something whose existence you refuse to recognize?

Ignoring the fact that being opposed to constitutional change does not equate to refusing to recognized the JSDF,

Actually it does. Since the change that Abe is suggesting the recognition of the JSDF by amending the second paragraph, but not touching the first which denounces the use of war. It is the first paragraph that makes it a "Peace Constitution". Amending the second simply removes a contradiction. Refusing to recognize their existence yet expecting their services at the same time is hypocrisy.

>

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

So near but so far Abesan. Must be frustrating. Not on this term it seems. Change comes real hard in Japan. Remember more than 60 percent of the population have little or no understanding of global dynamics nor Japans place in it and that there may lie the problem? You have to know the past to know the present to plot a course for the future. Doing phone polls means jack. Its all just an uninformed hip reflex reaction to the bogeyman that is change, that plus a litmus test to see how much the recent political scandals have affected the popularity of the PM.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

This poll should be taken after the series of meetings soon to be held between N-S Koreas and President Trump - Kim Jong Un. Personally, I’ve never felt a clear North Korean threat to Japan. In my mind it’s mostly all been an in-house fabrication. Launching a few missiles over Japan territory could be seen as aggression but never was it mentions that it was meant to threaten Japan. The missiles were flying so high, they were beyond Japan’s claim to their airspace.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

 Abe is suggesting the recognition of the JSDF by amending the second paragraph, but not touching the first which denounces the use of war.

But the LDP draft does touch the first paragraph of Article 9.

Original: 戦争の放棄

日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する

RENUNCIATION OF WAR

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

LDP draft: 安全保障 (平和主義)

日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動としての戦争を放棄し、武力による威嚇および武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては利用しない

SECURITY (PACIFISM)

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and will not use the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

I've yet to see anyone explain why the 永久にこれを放棄する (forever renounce war) needs to be removed. Unless someone is trying to leave the door ajar for future wars.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Present constitution of Japan written by U.S has become controversial among people .It is better to scrap it and Japanese should rewrite it again keeping in view the future challenges which Japan is facing at present.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I for one doubt the ability of our current "political elite" to craft any change beneficial to the Japanese people. And certainly not a complete redrafting of the entire Constitution. I am content to wait for a Leader an administration that acutely has a positive vision and explained what it wants to do clearly, has the support of the voters. I might be dead before that happens. Our current "leaders" definitely will be.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Ah,Abe's pet project again.He wants to change it so his granddaddy would be proud of him,lol.He wants to make Japan a "beautiful country" where the elites can do all sorts of favors for their buddies,go to sexy yoga classes without fear of being disclosed while at the same time using the plebs as cannon fodder in some distant land just so you hey can sell weapons abroad.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Article 9 FTW

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I less care about scandals of Abe+His wife+his ministers since I'm against the most Abe policy with some right-wing LDP and Nihon-Kaigi nationalist members to change the constitution of more militarism. JSDF to protect this beloved Japan at most and never to support super-power countries to intervene and invade other country, even UN had wrong decisions to (military) peacemakers to reside amongst internal conflicts on that dispatched land. Japan to have peaceful actions and not at all misdirections Japan did in the past.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

B.l. SharmaToday 11:41 am JST

It is better to scrap it and Japanese should rewrite it again keeping in view the future challenges which Japan is facing at present.

A total waste of time that would be better spent addressing problems that directly affect people. I suppose it's just easier to obsess over vanity projects and quibble over semantics than actually achieve something tangible and meaningful.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lol well maybe yes. But I am Japanese American and pro US as well and I dont have a problem with both countries being allies and pursuing interests. All good here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The survey also highlights the public's appreciation for the war-renouncing Article 9, with 69 percent saying it is the reason Japan has never used force overseas since the end of World War II.

That's interesting. According to the world media and world public opinion, all Japanese citizens are war mongering ignoramuses who either whitewash history or are ignorant.

The interesting and enlightening things you learn when you actually interact with Japanese citizens, instead of relying on preconceived erroneous assumptions, huh?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If the changes was sold to the public as a simple tidying up exercise, allowing for the legal and proper recognition of the SDF's as a proper military then I doubt that there would be as much fuss or opposition. However the powers that be, and for the most part the media, seem to be under the impression that this will allow for Japan to embark on military conquests and fight wars on others behalf's.

Yes, the changes would allow for forces to be deployed over seas but this is happening already, and has been for a few years now! In this time of uncertainty is it not right and fair that for the sake of a few words that would allow the proper respect and acknowledgment the SDF make to the security of Japan, that making this change is the right thing to do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Strangerland Apr. 26 07:07 am JST

Ignoring the fact that being opposed to constitutional change does not equate to refusing to recognized the JSDF, the whole point of a democracy is that people are free to criticize it, yet still receive the protection of the country. That's how healthy democracies work. Anytime you start shooting down someone's right to have an opposing opinion in a democracy, you are opposing democracy.

While that's true, it's also true that in most cases "criticism" does not go as far as to deny the legality or legitimacy of the criticized, which in the case of a government agency is equivalent to saying it shouldn't exist at all. For example, while Americans may complain about certain wars or certain parts of the US military, none of them will say it is an illegal organization.

So there is actually a moral argument to say that people taking such a position should at least be burdened by not receiving help from said organization, especially when such help is neither cost nor risk free.

@katsu78Apr. 26 07:43 am JST

Personally, I've always thought the most noble thing about people who join militaries and police forces is the drive to serve their community. How sad that we have people actively trying to deny this opportunity for service and selflessness, and instead twist it into a demand that the community serve the military.

Nobody is asking the community "serve" the military". The point is that the community not oppose the very existence of the military. If they oppose to such an extent, WHY should they receive assistance at all. Maybe you should be thinking how to answer that rather than a strawman.

@cleoApr. 26 11:07 am JST

There have been a number of LDP drafts. In the case of the draft you presented, I'll say the main shift is actually to move the 放棄 forward, so only War is abandoned as a state right (国権). As for the use or threat of force at a sub-war level, it is not renounced anymore, just that it won't be exploited as a means of settling international disputes.

On the positive (if you are a pacifist), the qualifying phrase "国際紛争を解決する手段としては" is removed from affecting the "war" part of the statement. So you can read it to say that now Japan won't fight "wars" even in cases where it is NOT a means for settling international disputes (such as a war of self-defense), in short a strengthening of that part of the restraint. In exchange, the restraint to use some force at a sub-war level is loosened somewhat.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If Japan will revoke its Pacifist constitution, its military will end up becoming Americans' slave army in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Already is military are playing to the tunes of USA in Sudan, Iraq & Afghanistan

Very bad for low birth rate country

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites